1. I like presentation that foregrounds the structure of the ideas being presented. Sometimes bullet points do that well.
Some specific common structures that are served well by bullet points:
General principle with multiple supporting examples. (Like this list right here.)
Claim with multiple bits of supporting evidence/argument. This fits bullet points well because
you can put each bit in its own bullet point
you can bulletize recursively
so you can see the support for the claims that support the claims that support your main argument
if a reader is already satisfied that a thing is true, or so convinced it’s wrong that they don’t care what ridiculous bogus pseudo-evidence you’ve marshalled for it, they can skip the bullets
Claim with counterarguments/objections
You might think this is confusing because its presentation is just like that of the claim-with-support, where the bullet-pointed items have exactly the opposite significance.
Maybe it is, but I don’t think any other mode of presentation does better.
This and its predecessor might be better thought of as special cases: you make a claim, and then you bulletize whatever bits of evidence or argument bear on it one way or the other.
In plain-text bullet-lists, I like to use “+” and “-” (and sometimes “=”) as my “bullets” in this sort of context, with the obvious meaning.
Main argument and incidental remarks
I like pizza.
Chronological sequence with fairly clear-cut divisions (at regime changes, important technological/scientific developments, publication of important works, etc.)
2. I like concise, compact accounts of things. Bullet points can work against this (because they space things out) or for it (by encouraging terseness). But I don’t like concision when it comes at the cost of clarity or correctness, and maybe concise bullet points are bad because they encourage omission of necessary nuance.
3. I agree with the person who said numbered lists are better than bullet points because they allow for easy cross-reference. (But also for easy screwups, if you add something and everything gets renumbered without the cross-refs being fixed up.)
4. Bullet-lists don’t tend to make for elegant writing. Sometimes that matters, sometimes not.
5. Bullet-lists can obscure your logical structure instead of revealing it, as follows. The list structure takes the place of many explicit logical-structuring elements (“therefore”, “because”, “furthermore”, etc.) but sometimes explicit is better than implicit and e.g. it may not be clear to the reader whether you’re saying “here’s another reason to believe X”, “here’s a good argument against X which I’ll address below”, “here’s a silly argument against X which I bring up merely as a hook on which to hang something I want to say in favour of X”, etc.
6. Although bullet-lists tend (on the whole) to clarify logical structure at small scales, they don’t work so well at larger scales (say the length of an essay, or even a book). For that you need something else: chapters, headings, and so forth. And longer (say, paragraph-length or more) explanations of the structure. (“In this book I’m going to argue that scholarly publications in theoretical physics should be written in verse. The first three chapters motivate this by showing some examples of important papers whose impact was greatly reduced by their being written in prose. Then I’ll explain in detail what poetic forms are most appropriate for what sort of research and why, giving numerous examples. The final four chapters of the book illustrate my thesis by taking Einstein’s so-called “annus mirabilis” papers and rendering them in the sort of verse form I recommend. This book is dedicated to the memory of Omar Khayyam.”)
7. If I’m writing down my thoughts on something to help clarify them, I often use something like bullet-point structure.
I’m mostly a fan.
1. I like presentation that foregrounds the structure of the ideas being presented. Sometimes bullet points do that well.
Some specific common structures that are served well by bullet points:
General principle with multiple supporting examples. (Like this list right here.)
Claim with multiple bits of supporting evidence/argument. This fits bullet points well because
you can put each bit in its own bullet point
you can bulletize recursively
so you can see the support for the claims that support the claims that support your main argument
if a reader is already satisfied that a thing is true, or so convinced it’s wrong that they don’t care what ridiculous bogus pseudo-evidence you’ve marshalled for it, they can skip the bullets
Claim with counterarguments/objections
You might think this is confusing because its presentation is just like that of the claim-with-support, where the bullet-pointed items have exactly the opposite significance.
Maybe it is, but I don’t think any other mode of presentation does better.
This and its predecessor might be better thought of as special cases: you make a claim, and then you bulletize whatever bits of evidence or argument bear on it one way or the other.
In plain-text bullet-lists, I like to use “+” and “-” (and sometimes “=”) as my “bullets” in this sort of context, with the obvious meaning.
Main argument and incidental remarks
I like pizza.
Chronological sequence with fairly clear-cut divisions (at regime changes, important technological/scientific developments, publication of important works, etc.)
2. I like concise, compact accounts of things. Bullet points can work against this (because they space things out) or for it (by encouraging terseness). But I don’t like concision when it comes at the cost of clarity or correctness, and maybe concise bullet points are bad because they encourage omission of necessary nuance.
3. I agree with the person who said numbered lists are better than bullet points because they allow for easy cross-reference. (But also for easy screwups, if you add something and everything gets renumbered without the cross-refs being fixed up.)
4. Bullet-lists don’t tend to make for elegant writing. Sometimes that matters, sometimes not.
5. Bullet-lists can obscure your logical structure instead of revealing it, as follows. The list structure takes the place of many explicit logical-structuring elements (“therefore”, “because”, “furthermore”, etc.) but sometimes explicit is better than implicit and e.g. it may not be clear to the reader whether you’re saying “here’s another reason to believe X”, “here’s a good argument against X which I’ll address below”, “here’s a silly argument against X which I bring up merely as a hook on which to hang something I want to say in favour of X”, etc.
6. Although bullet-lists tend (on the whole) to clarify logical structure at small scales, they don’t work so well at larger scales (say the length of an essay, or even a book). For that you need something else: chapters, headings, and so forth. And longer (say, paragraph-length or more) explanations of the structure. (“In this book I’m going to argue that scholarly publications in theoretical physics should be written in verse. The first three chapters motivate this by showing some examples of important papers whose impact was greatly reduced by their being written in prose. Then I’ll explain in detail what poetic forms are most appropriate for what sort of research and why, giving numerous examples. The final four chapters of the book illustrate my thesis by taking Einstein’s so-called “annus mirabilis” papers and rendering them in the sort of verse form I recommend. This book is dedicated to the memory of Omar Khayyam.”)
7. If I’m writing down my thoughts on something to help clarify them, I often use something like bullet-point structure.